Jesus Land: A Memoir by Julie Scheeres

Julie Scheeres had a shitty childhood. Now you might think you've had a shitty childhood and feel you could hold your own in the Shitty Childhood Championships but, unless you have a particularly harrowing story or were her brother David, it is unlikely to be as shitty as Scheeres. She grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household with parents who she paints as unloving and scary. Her father beat her adopted brothers brutally. Her mother had an intercom system set up so she could monitor conversations anywhere in the house.

She also experienced sexual abuse from her older adoptive brother, Jerome, who made her young life a living hell. Meanwhile her brother David suffered racist abuse on an almost daily basis growing up in "Hicksville" as a black adopted member of a white family.

And what did the two of them get for their troubles? They got sent to Escuela Caribe, a Christian reform school in the Dominican Republic, where they were subjected to emotional and physical abuse "for their own good".

Sounds like a depressing book right? But instead Scheeres manages to maintain a balanced look back on her youth weaving in humourous episodes and giving full and balanced perspectives on all involved (rather than the deeply bitter perspective one could reasonably accept from someone who has been through what she went through). But above all else the love she had for her brother David shines through and this book is really a story about how they stuck it out together dreaming of a better life.

This is a story of religious excess, abuse, racism and of family. And it is one I'll admit to shedding a tear over in the final pages. Scheeres really doesn't hold back much detail on what happened to her which gives this book the credibility that many memoirs I've read recently desperately lack.

There's more on the abusive atmosphere at Escuela Caribe here.

A Thousand Lives: The Untold Story of Jonestown by Julie Scheeres

A Thousand Lives. What an absolutely excellent book. Julie Scheeres has a real talent for bringing history to life. Whilst Reiterman's "Raven" (which I read a couple of months ago) gives a detailed history of Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple this book gives us an insight into the people of Jonestown and how they fell in love with the Peoples Temple and how it turned out for them on November 18th 1978.

You follow the lives of people like Hyacinth Thrash who was with Jones from his early days in Indiana all the way through to that last evening when she managed to survive the massacre in her cottage. You see how she changes from true believer to disgruntled resident. Unlike other books you get a real sense of the humanity of the Jonestown residents.

Another person who the narrative follows is Edith Roller. An intelligent, middle class former college professor she truly believed in the project. She also kept an incredibly detailed journal describing life in the colony and honestly discussing some of its drawbacks. She died that tragic November evening.

But the true tear-jerker story is that of teenage rebels Tommy Bogue and Brian Davis. They were desperate to escape the Hell that was their life in Jonestown. They were inseparable. Except on the final day when Bogue finally got his wish and fled with his family. Davis, a minor and unable to leave without his family's permission, was murdered that night. You can read Bogue's moving tribute to his friend here.

If you want a blow-by-blow account of the rise and fall of Jim Jones, go read "Raven". If you, however, want to really understand (as close as anyone so far removed from the events can anyway) what the people of Jonestown went through and how they were led to the slaughter this is the book for you.

Some may just mock the victims of Jones and put it all down to them being crazy cultists. But they were so much more than that and Scheeres really brings home to you that each one of those people who died were individuals. All undeserving of their fate.

Scheeres ends the book with words that have haunted me for days after finishing it. "They believed in a dream, how terribly they were betrayed."

Ervil LeBaron & The Extremes Of Religious Conviction

I've just finished two books which detail the bloody history of two Mormon sects headed by two very different brothers. The 4 O'Clock Murders gives a very well-written overview of the history of the LeBaron family, their Mormon fundamentalist faith and the events leading up to and following the religious split that would lead to a great deal of misery. Cult Insanity: A Memoir of Polygamy, Prophets, and Blood Atonement by Irene Spencer, a personal memoir of her time as the plural wife of Verlan LeBaron. As a (then) member of the family and someone who was privy to the internal politics of the sects it is an interesting insider account which complements The 4 O'Clock Murders and also contains a few moments of light relief.


The history of the faith journey of the LeBarons is far too convoluted (comprising as it does a few different claims to Mormon prophethood) to go into here. However the short (comparatively) story is that in the 1950s Joel LeBaron founded the Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times claiming to be the "One Mighty and Strong" that the founder of the Latter-day Saint movement Joseph Smith had claimed would arrive to put the affairs of the church and the world in order. Many of Joel's brothers, including Verlan and Ervil, quickly accepted his claims. However Ervil hungered for power and eventually split the church. He and his followers, believing Ervil to be the true "One Might and Strong" founded the Church of the Lamb of God.

Ervil couldn't believe that many had failed to accept his claims and had stayed loyal to Joel. Hungry for power and desperate to take over Joel's church Ervil had Joel murdered by his followers. When this act failed to bring many converts (with the Firstborn members being quite understandably rather terrified by the events and scared of Ervil) he ordered an attack on Los Molinos, a Mexican colony of the Firstborn church. Drawing a crowd to fight a fire they had lit, Ervil's followers (hoping to catch Verlan, the new Firstborn leader) opened fire killing 2 and injuring dozens. Growing dissent and "disobedience" within his own church lead Ervil to order the murders of others including his own daughter.

Ervil's downfall came when he planned once more to ensnare Verlan. He decided the only way to draw an understandably paranoid and elusive Verlan into the open was a major funeral he couldn't fail to attend. Rulon Allred, then leader of one of the largest Mormon fundamentalist groups in the USA, was the target. Two women, one Ervil's plural wife Rena, murdered Allred at his place of work but a large police presence at his funeral meant the attempt on Verlan's life was aborted. Rena was acquited of the crime but later admitted it in an autobiography.

Ervil, however, finally faced justice for orchestrating the murder of Rulon Allred and died in prison in 1981. Unfortunately that was not the end of the horrors. Ervil left a list of people (mainly followers who abandoned his church in the aftermath of Allred murder trial) who he wanted "blood atoned" (murdered). And he also left over 50 children among whom a number were willing to carry out his orders. Many have died since (including 4 people all at once in the "4 O'Clock Murders) and some of his children and followers remain on the loose even today.

What on Earth possessed ordinary Americans and Mexicans to turn into cold-blooded killers? A mixture of unquestioning faith and tribalism allowed them to follow the orders of a crazy man preaching discarded Mormon principles. Both books give different insights into what drove Ervil (power, money and attention mainly) and how his followers were completely unable to see that (or, in some cases, embraced it). The events are a warning of where extreme belief can lead us.

"Them: Adventures with Extremists" by Jon Ronson

A bit of an oldie now but, given the increasing rise in profiles of extremists of all ilks, "Them" provides a really interesting insight into the odd mentality of holders of some of the weirder political outlooks in the Western world.

From Omar Bakri to Alex Jones we see the odd dissonance (something I see in most "believers") between living ordinary lives with ordinary problems whilst holding onto beliefs that seem to oppose the very concept of living ordinary lives. If I truly believed in the New World Order I'd either try and keep my head down or give up my ordinary life and become a die-hard opponent. This "Having our cake and eating it" malarkey seems to fly in the face of their own beliefs, with their ability to live a normal life seemingly unimpeded by the evil NWO.

You also get to see a human side to these people that helps you remember that they aren't madmen or geniuses but just flawed people like the rest of us. They live "exciting" lives full of paranoia and faux intrigue, playing out fantasies like tricked out role players.

Oddly, given my line of work is fairly mundane, I speak to similarly paranoid people all the time. I spend a lot of time trying to convince them I'm not out to get them before they'll finally let me help them. And I regularly encounter people with extremely odd beliefs regarding conspiracies, aliens etc. I've come to believe these "extremists" are little more than just the tip of a large iceberg. Humans, in general, easily and readily give themselves over to crazy beliefs, easy (if elaborate) explanations for what are really rather mundane events and to a blinkered worldview that defends their viewpoints regardless of any counter evidence.

Skepticism has a long way to go in changing human behaviours for the better.

Workfare and Council Prayers: The Tories Must Be Tamed

The benefit cap and the European Union veto must have gone to the Tories' heads. With much popular support (more lukewarm on my behalf especially on the EU stuff) they probably thought their time had come. Forgetting they hadn't quite managed a majority at the last election and are currently showing no sign of a surge, the Tory party's more nasty wing may have got a little over-enthusiastic.

Firstly comes workfare (or, as it's called, "Get Britain Working", which sounds like something from the 50s). There are some interesting ideas in there. The idea of having people on benefits do some constructive work is appealing. The argument goes that they will gain useful experience of work and the probability of a job interview whilst those they work for gain cheap labour for menial tasks and get the chance to try before they buy on applicants.

But I'm very concerned about several aspects.

1) Welfare isn't just given out to life-long welfare scroungers as the Tories would have you believe. It's given out to people who have worked, paid their National Insurance and taxes, and thus have reasonable expectation of getting assistance when they need it without the need to work for it again!
2) This amounts to a Government subsidy of private enterprise. It's impractical to expect small to medium enterprises or charities to have the resources to give applicants the training they would need and, by default, this would mean subsidising the larger (and generally already pretty successful) businesses. My opinion of the public sector and private sector mixing is very low.
3) Will the jobs offered, such as shelf-stacking, really give anyone the experience they need (beyond at turning up on time and following instructions)? I am very suspect over this.

So it's hardly surprising there has been a very successful outpouring of displeasure from many quarters, especially towards those businesses involved.

If this as aimed at the long-term unemployed, was completely voluntary (it actually is voluntary but it sounds like there is a great deal of pressure to get on it) and offered something more than just Job Seeker's Allowance (as suggested on Twitter earlier perhaps a wage below minimum wage on a fixed-term contract) then I think it might be useful. It'd give people a little more cash, still offer the benefits to business but not quite as significant as before and give people the self-esteem boost by getting out there a little. Even so I'd probably still be against it on principle, benefit reform is a good thing and I support the benefit cap but this is just a step too far for me.

The Tories are fitting themselves in to the usual stereotype of hating the poor and helping out their corporate mates.

And then comes even more "Same Old Tories" nonsense. Prayers at council meetings.

I would've thought that given we live in a religiously diverse country Christian prayers during council business would be a thing of the past. However they weren't and all those attending council meetings had this bizarre practice thrust upon them. No amount of mentioning Matthew 6:5 will dissuade Christians and Tories this will change their minds on the rightness of it.

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

Thankfully this week this was ruled as not in keeping with the Local Government Act and such prayers were there-by banned. They could still be held before the meetings just not as part of the agenda, allowing those who didn't wish to take part (like people who actually listen to what Jesus said) to turn up a little later. A good compromise.

Alas, the Tories couldn't help themselves. Along comes Eric Pickles to the rescue, once more allowing prayers during council meetings. I thereby urge all free-thinking councils to engage in Jedi prayers, Muslim prayers, Flying Spaghetti Monster prayers and see just how soon it before the Daily Mail screams blue murder. Go on... do it!

The Tory Christians are my least favourite kind. Intolerant and inflexible. Well okay, the BNP supporting Christians are worse but they have the excuse of being stark raving loons. The Tories should know better, but sadly they don't appear to be engaging their brains.

I suspect if they keep playing into the stereotype Labour wants them to play into, Labour might win the next election. Even with Ed Miliband as leader. Liberal Tories... where have you gone?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Christianity Is Not The Saviour Of Secular, Liberal Society

There is well-founded concern among LGBT folk of Islamic prejudice against us. And it's a topic not without it's controversy as the East End Gay Pride fiasco showed. It's certainly something that needs more discussion and, even more importantly, action given the anti-gay poster "campaign" and the faux gay "frighten the Muslim vote" leaflets of late.

However I draw the line at what I see as a "brewing" reaction among certain LGBT people; namely a desire to get back to "good old British values". It's the equivalent of a collective thought along the lines of "Bugger, look at what we've done. We beat the Christians into submission and now look what's taking their place!" We saw some of that in the rhetoric from some supporters of the East End Gay Pride. Now we have a Telegraph piece being even more explicit.

Last weekend, the papers convulsed over the case of a Christian GP, whose avowedly Christian approach to medical practice had been found to involve, er, discussing Christianity. I'd rather discuss antibiotics, but still: the overreaction is a displacement activity, isn't it? We can safely worry about peaceable, well-meaning Christians, and demand a more and more un-Christian state, because that's what all rational people want, isn't it?

Not me, not any more. I'm not a believer. But to paraphrase G K Chesterton, when a Christian society stops believing in God, it's not the case that it will start to believe in just anything. If you want to see what does fill the vacuum, get on the bus to the dear old East End.

Well I feel I must cry "Bullshit!" at the top of my lungs to all who can hear. This view of Christianity as somehow "nicer" than Islam is more a case of wishful thinking rather than a sensible piece of political positioning.

I come from the rather coldhearted, but at least consistent, position that ALL religion is (at best) silly. There are many kind hearted souls who believe all sorts of weird and unusual things who I have no personal problem with. There are also all sorts of nasty people who believe all sorts of weird and unusual things who I do have a BIG problem with. Deciding who falls into which (admittedly blurred) category is not a case of finding out which imaginary sky fairy they worship. It's a case of listening to what they say, and seeing what they do and making rational decisions based on that.

Item: Homosexuality is still deeply controversial even among the relatively liberal Christian sects,

Item: Homosexuality's still seen as something to be cured by some true believers

Item: You only need to read some of Warren Throckmorton's writings on what one Christian gets up to in the name of his saviour to see how some Christians give those "radical Muslims" right-wing types are so scared of (and left-wing types a little too eager to court) a run for their money.

Even Richard Dawkins, a man who I find is usually right but damn smug about it, has fallen into this fallacy of "Christianity = good, Islam = bad".

We didn't spend years fighting Mary Whitehouse and her brigade of moralising numpties just to give up in the face of another challenge. This isn't a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" moment. There's just another enemy of secular Britain to add to the one's we've always had. We must work with secular, liberal minded people of all faiths, and of none, to fight intolerance everywhere be it in the form a rabidly anti-religious atheist, a Muslim fundamentalist, the EDL or the Pope.

The saviour of our secular society will be our secular population!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Frustratingly Daft Response From Church Of England

You know I'm no fan of the Government's plans for religious civil partnerships. But the reaction from the Church of England to the proposals is complete nonsense.

The Government plans to open up the ability for those entering into a civil partnership to have religious readings, texts, etc at their wedding and perhaps even hold it in a religious setting (such a Liberal Synagogue). It is not forcing religions to change their beliefs or coercing them to perform civil partnerships. Yet the reaction from the Church of England would appear to suggest otherwise.

Here's the latest:

The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Rev Bishop Nicholas Reade, says his churches will not be used for same-sex ceremonies.

And he has criticised proposals for a change in the law, believed to have been drawn up by Liberal Democrat equality minister Lynne Featherstone.

No problems there, each to their own and all that.

Bishop Nicholas said: I find it quite hard to understand why the government should think it can interfere with the teachings of the church.

Sorry, come again???

Church and state are not the same thing, and I am very surprised that without any consultation with the church the government is making such a sweeping statement.

Erm... failing to see the point here. The Government should have consulted with the Church before allowing OTHER RELIGIONS to have the choice to perform civil partnerships? It makes no sense!

But Bishop Nicholas, whose diocese covers the whole of East Lancashire, said it was not the governments role to make the change.

Bishop Nicholas views echo an official statement from the Church of England, which said it would not allow its churches to be used.

It's not the Governments role to make something that is illegal legal?? Then whose role is it?? The Church of England does not have the authority to create legislation that's binding on other religions and the non-religious does it?

Bishop Nicholas is a fool. And I mean that in the sense that he is obviously stupid. And when I say that I mean he is so intellectually deficient that I find it quite bizarre that he has reached the position that he has. But then again he is in an organisation that believes in Virgin Birth.

Daft.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Final Insult

Not only do we have to fund the State visit of Pope Benedict XVI, but now his Cardinals get to fling insults at our country whilst our Government must maintain a welcoming diplomatic front so as not to upset the Pope!!

One of the Pope's senior advisers has pulled out of the papal visit to Britain, after reportedly saying the UK is a "Third World country" marked by "a new and aggressive atheism".

Cardinal Walter Kasper, 77, made the remarks in a German magazine interview.

The Vatican said the cardinal had not intended "any kind of slight", and was referring to the UK's multicultural society.

It added that he had simply pulled out of the Pope's visit due to illness.

The German-born cardinal was quoted as saying to the country's Focus magazine that "when you land at Heathrow you think at times you have landed in a Third World country".

He also was reported to have criticised British Airways, saying that when you wear a cross on the airline "you are discriminated against".

Vatican sources said Cardinal Kasper was suffering from gout and had been advised by his doctors not to travel to the UK.

The Pope is spending four days in Scotland and England, starting on Thursday.

The BBC's correspondent in Rome, David Willey, said the cardinal's reported comments were "a slightly clumsy thing to have done on the eve of the visit".

However, he added that he did not think it would have much effect on the Pope's trip to the UK.

Would somebody please inform Her Majesty that she has a great deal of backing if she wanted to "forget" he was coming to visit and spend a relaxing, long weekend in Balmoral. Really, we wouldn't mind, Ma'am!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Supporting Free Speech Hurts, That's Sort Of The Point

When I was growing up it was illegal (or at least everyone thought it was) for my school to teach me about homosexual relationships, illegal for me to join the Armed Forces, there was no possibility of partnership rights (and still no legal ability to get married), even when I turned 16 it was illegal for me to have sex! I can only thank those involved in the fight (individuals, political parties, and charities) who helped secure the freedoms I and many other gay men and women enjoy today.

This is why I am very keen to fight for others freedoms. Be it the struggle for marriage equality, transgender rights, or even the rights of religious bigots, I will be there. I have always taken Niemoller's famous quote (or perhaps misquote) to heart:

First, they came for the Jews. But I was not a Jew, so I did not speak up.

Then they came for the communists.

But I was not a communist, so I did not speak up.

Then they came for the trade unionists.

But I was not a trade unionist, so I did not speak up.

And when they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out for me.

This is why I've always seen it as deeply important to stand up for people's freedoms to speak and do as they please. If I'm not prepared to stand up for others liberty, I do not deserve my own.

The case of Paul Shaw (warning this link goes to Christian Voice's website. Please wear applicable safety equipment) is yet another example of an over reaction by those who don't care for free speech and by the police who should know better.

What he said was pretty odious and obnoxious:

I believe for example that homosexual and lesbian acts are immoral and that the law should reflect that; by making them unlawful as they once were; and so acting as a deterrent to such behaviour.

The concept of homophobia is nonsense and a play on words; it is not and has never been a phobia! A phobia is an un-natural fear; whereas a rejection of perverse behaviour; is a righteous godly fear; that fears to do wrong because it knows that there are consequences and punishment otherwise! This is the most pronounced example of a nation that has lost its way ..

I doubt he has any redeeming virtues and suspect he is a poor excuse for a decent human being. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to voice his weird, batshit crazy opinions. Why on Earth did anyone think to themselves "I need to report this to the police"? It wouldn't even cross my mind. I read far harsher stuff every single day online on a great many different issues. I've never even considered contacting the police about it. Instead I write up my own responses to them. That is how things should be done in a society which holds individual freedom up as something to aspire to.

No wonder the fight for LGBT liberation is so lacklustre at the moment. Has our community decided that instead of fighting prejudice and bigotry in the press, in the streets and in peoples homes they will simply use the police as proxies to silence and make martyrs of our opponents?

We need to find our fighting spirit again to hold people like Paul Shaw to account, not hide behind stupid laws and hope the bad people will just shut up. It's not going to happen. We need to win hearts and minds, and we need to stand up for Paul Shaw's right to be an offensive git. If we don't, how can we take the moral high ground? What defence will we have if the shoe ever gets back on the other foot?

We need to be better people than these religious fundamentalists. Becoming the new fundamentalists is not the way to do it.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Mormons

Long time readers will know a little about my love of "alternative" religions (some call them weird, but I think ALL religion is weird and thus don't approach any with a particular prejudice). Well I'm back on my Latter-Day Saints trip right now and think you should watch the following awesome PBS documentaries. Absolutely fascinating overview of Mormon history.



and



If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

It's Not Homophobic. It's Just Plain Bad Manners

'Homosexuals not welcome' say couple who want to foster

A former vicar and his wife are considering legal action after being barred from fostering children because of their Christian beliefs on homosexuality.

John and Collette Yallop, from Blackburn, told Lancashire County Council they would not want gay couples hoping to adopt, to come to their home.

The Yallops claim they've been refused because of their faith.

They have two children of their own and have been trying to foster since March.

They insist they're not homophobic and say inviting gay couples into their home for the handover process would be detrimental to their family life.

The pair don't believe gay couples should adopt a young child, and they wouldn't let a same sex couple wanting to adopt a child they were fostering interact with that child in their home.

But Lancashire County Council says foster carers must be open to working alongside anyone.

The Yallops say they'll challenge the decision on behalf of other Christians.

Let's be clear, this couple have said they will agree to meet with homosexual couples at council offices rather than their own home. They are not suggesting they would interfere in the adoption process.

However their attitudes are typical of so-called "Christians" who fail to appreciate the message of love brought by Christ and instead insist on being all "Old Testament" about things. I'll quote from this excellent article on Christian hospitality:

The biblical demand for hospitality, Pohl shows, is clear in both Old and New Testaments. The people of God are aliens and strangers whom God has welcomed into the "household of faith." In turn, God's people are to "make room" for the stranger, not only in the community of faith but also in their own personal households. This is the biblical meaning of hospitality—making room for the stranger, especially those in most acute need. Such care must not be reduced to mere social entertaining nor may it be self-interested and reciprocal; instead, biblical hospitality reaches out to the abject and lowly and expects nothing in return. Hospitality is not optional, nor should it be understood as a rare spiritual gift; instead, it is a normative biblical practice that is learned by doing it.

Hospitality is implicitly subversive in the way it shatters social boundaries, especially those boundaries enforced by table fellowship. When we eat with the lowly and welcome strangers and "sinners" to our table, we topple social expectations and bear witness to the kind of love God has for all his creatures. It is not coincidental that Jesus perhaps most scandalized his critics in his practice of table fellowship. "He eats with tax collectors and sinners"—this was not a compliment. And it was precisely the radical nature of Christian hospitality, Pohl shows, that characterized the early church, helped spread the Gospel, and healed the dramatic social barriers that initially confronted the church as the Gospel permeated the Greco-Roman world.

The connection between hospitality and Jesus is indeed rich and mysterious. As Pohl shows, in New Testament perspective Jesus is simultaneously guest, host, and meal. He is guest whenever we welcome and care for the stranger and the broken (Mt. 25:31-46). He is host, for example, when he hosts the Last Supper, during which "we . . . celebrate the reconciliation and relationship available to us because of [Jesus'] sacrifice and through his hospitality" (p.30)—and when he will host the Great Supper in the Kingdom. And he himself, as our paschal sacrifice, is the meal we eat, not only in Communion but in ongoing Christian experience as we feed on his life to nourish our own.

I think this couple would be wise to remember these lessons.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Scientology Never Learns

As Scientologist's complaints about a councillor's comments on Twitter have forced him to face a disciplinary, I thought I'd take the time to just remind people of some resources where they can find out more about the sort of practices Scientology gets up to. (FYI John Dixon's "crime" was to tweet: “I didn’t know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off.”)

Operation Clambake is the centre of discussion for ex-members and those interested/concerned by Scientology.

Xenu TV for awesome news from a former Scientologist.

Tory Magoo's Youtube Channel, a "recent" escapee, she helped greatly during Project Chanology.

Let's be clear, Scientology is not any more worthy of criticism than most religions. BUT... that doesn't mean we should give them any slack either. I've not been!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Equal Marriage: Civil AND Religious

The coverage of Simon Hughes response to my question about marriage equality has been welcome. However both his response and the coverage still leave me with concerns.

What I want is for the Government to make the marriage laws in this country gender neutral. That is all I ask. They must not give in to the temptation (as they have on so many Marriage Acts of the past) to fiddle around and make new rules here and there covering where and when a marriage can be carried out.

Let's see how the Daily Mail reported his comments:

However, they would not apply to ceremonies in church - only those in a register office or other licensed venue

The Government has NO place telling registered religious places of worship who they can and can't marry. That should be up to the religious bodies. They have this right of refusal as it stands. They can refuse to marry people who's lifestyles don't fit their belief system (such as the Catholic church and divorcee's). There are religious denominations, such as the Society of Friends, who support marriage equality and wish to marry members. This shouldn't be proscribed just because the big religions and the reactionaries want to put a spanner in the works of equality.

If religious marriage equality was proscribed, it would be affront to the religious freedoms of individuals and organisations.

Of course, this is all very presumptuous to suggest that any legislation will be presented any time soon. But I think it's important we have this discussion now, rather than later.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

More Ex-Gay Nonsense

I've no problem with organisations and individuals attempting to "help" those who, voluntarily, wish to try and "change their sexuality". I'm a great believer in individual freedom.

But that doesn't mean I believe it is possible, that I think it is ethical and it doesn't mean I won't moan about "ex-gay therapy" whenever I have the opportunity. Today's video of two victims of an ex-gay therapist comes via Queerty.



If you want to know more about the weird practices and strange beliefs of ex gay therapists check out Ex-Gay Watch or Truth Wins Out.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

First They Came For The Burqa...

This week has seen renewed efforts to ban the burqa both in our country and in France (a country I can see from the end of my road!).

Whilst the British story is more of a legislative joke, the tone of Philip Hollobone MP is pretty offensive. As a MP he doesn't really have the right to pick and choose which constituents he will meet and talk to just because of what they are wearing. We must stand up and point out the ridiculous nature of the suggestion he wants to ban people from wearing an item of clothing and won't even talk to someone wearing it! Is he saying it is okay for religious symbols and clothing to be banned? Will he now stand up for Government bodies who ban crucifixes? I don't think so.

In France, the National Assembly has vote to ban the burqa. Whilst this is not the final stage of the process, it is incredibly disappointing that a country founded on the concept of liberty would try to stop people choosing what they can and can't wear.

Now I understand the issues behind the burqa are intensely complicated. But dealing with them by banning the burqa is, as Liberal Vision says, about as sensible as banning black eyes to stop domestic violence.

Government should not be telling it's citizens how to live their lives. That is the basic foundation of liberty.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Persecution Of Christians

Let's face it, Christianity has been getting a very bad name (nowhere more so than on this blog). The abuse meted out to others in the name of Christianity can anger even the most meek. But it's easy to forget that in some countries Christians themselves are a persecuted minority.

When I was studying theology at school, I remember attending a conference where a Pakistani Christian man was speaking. He had been severely wounded in his homeland by an automatic firearm, used on him by religious extremists who had already killed his family. His face still bore the scars.

If I, as a liberal who believes strongly in peace and human rights, am to have any credibility it would be remiss of me to pretend Christians, like just about every grouping, aren't discriminated and persecuted against in some countries.

So I can't help but agree with Warren Throckmorton's most recent blog post calling for common cause between those of us fighting for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people and the persecuted communities of Christians, such as those in Afghanistan. They might not stand up for us, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stand up for them.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Standing Up For Homophobes

Anti-gay preacher arrested for 'homophobic' election leaflets. That's the headline of a story today on Pink News. His crime? To write an election leaflet that was insulting.

According to the Colchester Daily Gazette, it condemned gays and lesbians and said they should be jailed.

Mr Shaw was arrested on June 11th on suspicion of inciting hatred, specifically homophobia. He was released on bail without charge until the middle of next month.

"Inciting hatred"? A bit like this:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This is the teaching of Judaism and Christianity. And really this Paul Shaw is actually seeking less than what his religion would require. Are we to start locking people up merely for what they believe, and attempting to encourage others to believe?

If he was inciting VIOLENCE then I'd support him being locked up. Inciting violence is always wrong, whatever the case. But he wasn't. He was inciting hatred. Hatred is, in my opinion, morally wrong and something we should work against. But we cannot legislate against it. If we did, our prisons would soon be full.

Freedom of speech must be paramount, the right to speak freely where not inciting violence is one that should be cherished. Even if some stupid idiots use it to speak from some dark place within themselves, or from a religious text such as the Bible. We must defeat them with the power and quality of our arguments, not make them martyrs by silencing them for holding incredibly backward views.

I'd argue people such as Westboro Baptist Church do us a favour by being so ridiculously hateful that it renders their arguments invalid. Let the homophobes be hoisted by their own petards.

It's the insidious homophobia demonstrated in things such as this video from the Catholic Church we must really fight against.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Secular Defence League

The English Defence League describes itself thus:

"We, the English Defence League, are a grass roots social movement who represent every walk of life, every race, every creed and every colour; from the working class to middle England. Our unity and diversity is our strength.

We have members that represent our culturally rich, “patriotic” and nation-loving populace. People who can see the threat of “Islamism” for what it is: a vile and virulent ideology based on 7th century barbarity, intolerance, hatred, subjugation and war."About page

Protest The Pope says this on it's front page:

"If you believe, as we do, that the Pope should not come to the UK without hearing from the millions of people who reject his harsh, intolerant views and the practices and policies of the Vatican State please get involved."

So the question must be: what's the difference? The English Defence League dislikes Islam. Protest the Pope dislikes the Pope and the Catholicism he represents. Yet, and I speak very generally here, whilst the EDL are (probably quite rightly) seen as a nationalistic, racist, prejudiced right wing grouping, the Protest the Pope movement is seen, by many liberals and lefties, as a valid movement of legitimate protest against a backward ideology.

You might think that displays my own prejudices. But it doesn't. Unlike many lefties and liberals, I'm not very keen on either Islam or Catholicism (or most any sort of organised religion). I like to be consistent. I'm even consistent on the fact that I see all three sides in the EDL argument (the Muslims, the EDL and the anti-fascists) as pretty much in the wrong and wish they'd all shut up. I'm an individualist. If someone wants to build a mosque and it's approved by the planning department let it be, or argue against it. But don't intimidate people just because of their religion. On the other hand those who wish to defend against such protests should do so without violence and in a legal manner.

So was my post on the Pope's visit really consistent? How can I oppose the protests of the EDL against Islamic institutions, yet support protests against the central institution of Catholicism (the Pope himself!)?

Perhaps I was wrong. Either I was wrong on the grounds that such a protest movement would be more ethical than the EDL's. Or, more likely, I was wrong that the cost wasn't a factor. Perhaps it is one. A mosque might not get public money. It's a private venture. Really private ventures should be private matters. The Pope's visit, however, is not a private matter, but he will be conducting private Catholic business whilst we pay for him to do so. That is, probably what irks me.

And that's consistent with my dislike of the Government banning those with "controversial" views. There's no problem to me with them visiting this country. We're not paying for their visit. But for the Pope we are.

So I take back my last post. It is about the money. The money is the most important factor. And thus I bring balance back to my beliefs. *phew*

What do you think? Is there a discernible difference between protesting the Pope because of his beliefs and the EDL marches protesting against Islam? Are the EDL actually on to something? Am I completely wrong? Feel free to discuss.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

A penny loaf to feed the Pope, £12 million pounds to choke him

There is, quite rightly, a need on the part of a host country to fund the costs of a visit to their country by another head of state. It is a mark of respect and basic good manners.

So the news that the Pope's visit might cost as much as £12 million pounds (or even nearer £100 million) should not be a factor in his visit, should it?

I would argue that cost shouldn't be a factor. But that doesn't mean I'm not completely opposed to a state visit by him.

A state visit is an honour bestowed by both the host and the guest on each other. What exactly has the Pope done that deserves this honour? Here's a few things, perhaps, from Protest The Pope:

However, as well as a religious leader, the Pope is a head of state and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:

- opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of AIDS
- promoting segregated education
- denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women
- opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people
- failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.
- rehabilitating the holocaust denier bishop Richard Williamson and the appeaser of Hitler, the war-time Pope, Pius XII.
- The state of which the Pope is the head has also resisted signing many major human rights treaties and has formed its own treaties (‘concordats’) with many states which negatively affect the human rights of citizens of those states.

Not exactly an unblemished record, and certainly not an honourable one. Let me make this clear; I do not oppose a visit to the United Kingdom by the Pope. I oppose a State Visit, and the honour and stamp of approval it brings.

Furthermore, he appears to be using this visit, funded by us, as a means to further the aims of the organisation he also heads. Holding public Mass' for members of his organisation is all very well. When he's not here as our guest.

Based on the itinerary, in fact, the Pope doesn't seem to be doing much that does not involve his position as Head of the Catholic Church. Is he visiting as a head of state or as a head of his church???

And there's the strange confusion between Government immigration policy and their acceptance of this visit. On the one hand they ban private visits by clerics, loony homophobes (such as the Phelps family) and Dutch parliamentarians from visiting because of their controversial statements, yet fund and encourage one by a religious leader who is just as controversial. Where's the consistency? Why were those bans allowed if we are then willing to allow the Pope in? Is it one rule for the ordinary person, and another for a man who claim's to be God's representative on Earth?

Cancel the state visit now. Send a message to say that whilst Britain doesn't tell other countries what to believe, we do expect a level of belief in basic fundamental individual rights and some sort of positive achievement before anyone gets accorded the honour of a State Visit to our great nation.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Tories, the General Election and LGBT Rights

The Tories have changed. I'm not going to argue that point. I sincerely believe David Cameron took a decision to move his party closer to the centre and as part of that project he finally dropped the official knee-dragging of the Tories over LGBT rights. That's great. But this official change has not led to changes in the grassroots (which I suppose no one would've expected) but it doesn't appear to have led to much change in the upper echelons either.

Firstly we had the Chris Grayling "B and B" gaffe, as Shadow Home Secretary you'd expect him to know the party line. Alas.

Then we had Julian Lewis and his comparison of the HIV risk to gay men to the risks faced in war, and that is why he supports an unequal age of consent.  *headdesk*

Then we had Philip Lardner, who has failed to understand the biological or psychological definitions of the word normal. He thinks things that are "common" are okay but those that are "rare" are not. On this basis "Tigers bad, domestic cats good!". Idiot. He promptly had Tory support withdrawn from his candidacy, again showing the deep divide between Tory policy and Tory reality. The support shown to him by lay Tory members on places like Conservative Home has shown how out of touch David Cameron is with his party's base. That doesn't matter whilst he's winning but, as Thatcher found out, they abandon you pretty quickly when you start to look like a loser.

Now we have Philippa Stroud. Obviously she already has her defenders (just check out some of the comments on that page). Religious freedom is a wonderful thing et al. BUT... these sort of ex-gay therapies are renowned for their psychologically harmful effects and for the abuse that often comes as part of the package. Thankfully I don't need to argue any of those points, as Ex Gay Watch documents all that pretty clearly.

The Tories have come a long way... but they've still got too far to go. LGBT folk who believe it's now safe to vote Tory must understand the change is only skin deep and only secure whilst "Cameronites" remain in charge. Be wary of pinning your hopes on them just yet.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist